board77

I've learned it's often pointless trying to get you to understand what I'm trying to say, vison.

Ara-anna--

The atmosphere probably came from the same offgassing that no doubt produced some of the water vapor on one hand, and from the materials such as methane and ammonia that were likely to remain gaseous as the rest of the planet coalesced on the other. Impact events contributed as well, and vulcanism.

These aren't guesses pulled out of a hat. If you look, for example, at the article from wikipedia, you will see that it is possible to test for various possibilities. That's how they determined that it's unlikely that icy comets delivered the bulk of water to the earth, because the distribution of isotopes is off. There is evidence to collect and analyze for this kind of question, and hypotheses to be formed, evaluated, and rejected or examined further.

That's science for ya. Something may come up tomorrow that forces reevaluation of all of the above.

hal -
There's not actually any need to define what a "day" was to god, as in the earliest texts found of the bible, the word now translated as "day" would actually be literally translated as "a period of time."

Whether you want to call that "period of time" a day in the current meaning of the word, or if you want to say that "period of time" was the Jurassic period or some such, is up to you. It is very important for biblical literalists to note, however, that going back to the earliest texts of the bible can sometimes mean that there are completely different meanings than you find now after thousands of years of both liguistical translations and political translations - the latter probably being the more damaging.

Other examples of things like "day" = "period of time" ?

Well, take the text "Thou shalt not suffer a 'witch' to live."

The word wasn't actually translated as "witch" until the St. James bible - before that the translation was usually - "Thou shalt not suffer a 'poisoner' (murderer) to live." I believe it's only a two letter difference in the original text between the word for murderer/poisoner and the word meaning something like witch, but those two letters are as important as say, the difference between the meanings of "runt" and "cunt."

An extreme example perhaps, but it shows my point

halplm wrote:

I've learned it's often pointless trying to get you to understand what I'm trying to say, vison.

No, halplm. The thing is, I do understand what you say. You don't seem to understand that.

When I see illogical and vague, hand-wavey stuff, I point it out. People don't like that, but then, I don't like illogical and vague, hand-wavey stuff.

You can believe what you want. That's your right. So can I, it's my right.

If you want to keep bringing religion into a scientific discussion or vice versa, you have to be prepared for the flak.

Excellent points, Estel.

Axordil wrote:

Ara-anna--

The atmosphere probably came from the same offgassing that no doubt produced some of the water vapor on one hand, and from the materials such as methane and ammonia that were likely to remain gaseous as the rest of the planet coalesced on the other. Impact events contributed as well, and vulcanism.

These aren't guesses pulled out of a hat. If you look, for example, at the article from wikipedia, you will see that it is possible to test for various possibilities. That's how they determined that it's unlikely that icy comets delivered the bulk of water to the earth, because the distribution of isotopes is off. There is evidence to collect and analyze for this kind of question, and hypotheses to be formed, evaluated, and rejected or examined further.

That's science for ya. Something may come up tomorrow that forces reevaluation of all of the above.

my point exactly. We can't stop questioning just because we have a theory. It's once we stop questioning and just accept things at face value we stop growing.

vison wrote:

halplm wrote:

Frankly, IMHO, both such points of view on the statement are absurd. The purpose of science is to strip away as much as possible to simplify something to the point we can understand it... and then build on that understanding. Science must strip away God, because God is the ultimate in complexity, and we can make no sense of him from a scientific point of view. The purpose of religion, is to try to understand God. It is somewhat futile, as I would argue we can never actually understand God, but it is still a worthy pursuit.

Frankly? This demonstrates perfectly why such an argument with someone who could say this is utterly pointless.

So, it's ok to say I'm completely wrong, but it's pointless to argue about it.

Quote:

If you really believe what you wrote, then not only do you not understand god, you don't understand science, either.

I didn't claim to understand either. In fact I stated quite clearly that I DON'T understand God, and I certainly don't understand all of science. But then, since everone I talk to seems to have a different definition of science, I'm not alone in either lack of understanding.

Do you understand God and Science completely, vison?

Quote:

Science must not " strip away God". God doesn't enter in to it at all. It is not part of the equation. It is not stripped away. It is immaterial, irrelevant. It is outside the question, not considered and then removed.

Well, I disagree, but then, it's not worth discussing I guess.

Quote:

You say you think that the purpose of religion is to understand god. If you think that, then why do you bring science into it at all? The two things have nothing to do with each other.

I disagree strongly. Both are attempts to understand ourselves and the universe around us. They attempt the same thing through different methods. But that's what I said in the post you've responded to, so I'm assuming you've dismissed that as wrong already. No further need to discuss.

Quote:

Mind you, I also disagree with your contention that the purpose of religion is to understand god. That's not how it looks like from here.

Well, if you're opposed to vague and hand-wavy statements, it doesn't show here...

First, people invented god. Why? Because they didn't have telescopes or microscopes, so they had to find some other way of explaining things. It was a pretty good system, at the time. Oh, and they didn't have paper or writing and stuff.

Then, when they got telescopes and microscopes, they learned a lotta stuff and by then they had paper and could write and, like, they could write it down and we can read it.

There you are. Now you know.

Stripping away God implies that God was even there to begin with, which is making an assumption that God exists and that's where discussion like these get bogged down. The existence or non-existence of God is not a testable hypothesis. There's no way to objectively observe God. The thing you have to remember about science is this: it goes from the ground up. You don't start with a theory and find the facts that fit it. You try to carry as few assumptions in as possible. A hypothesis is born out of observations and tested by further observations. If the hypothesis fails, you discard or modify it. Eventually, it is sufficiently tested and modified to be called a theory. If you thought you were just days away from polishing off a paper and your experiments show that your hypothesis is wrong, you curse and you cry but you do not discard the experiment. You modify your hypothesis and follow it up with another experiment (and that is the quick version of the last two months of my life). You deal entirely with what you observe and can know through observation. God and spirituality in general are completely outside that. There is no stripping. You can't strip what you can't empirically know.

Ara-anna: The Earth actaully acquired water very early on. So early that it was almost there from the start, kinda like a birthmark. As far as anyone knows, water was here before life was (and that is part of the reason why living systems are, for lack of a better term, wet). Now, whether or not water is required by a living systems or astrobiologists just say that because they lack imagination...that is another question. I sometimes wonder if, should we ever find life on another world, we would recognize it for what it is. People are still blown away by what we find on this planet, and the places in which we find it.

MariaHobbit wrote:

River wrote:

MH: entropy is not counter-acted by anything.

Maybe I should have said order vs chaos then, which isn't exactly an entropy thing, but seems like it.

I know.

I am told that the scientist who first described entropy lost his mind and killed himself. The more I think about it, the more I understand why.

The laws of thermodynamics are why I appreciate Norse mythology.

vison wrote:

First, people invented god. Why? Because they didn't have telescopes or microscopes, so they had to find some other way of explaining things. It was a pretty good system, at the time. Oh, and they didn't have paper or writing and stuff.

Then, when they got telescopes and microscopes, they learned a lotta stuff and by then they had paper and could write and, like, they could write it down and we can read it.

There you are. Now you know.

So people only believe in God because they are too stupid to realize that we invented him in the first place out of our own ignorance.

That's a lot of stupid people.

It must feel good to feel superior to so many people...

Well, first of all, science is a methodology based on what can be observed and tested concerning the natural universe and events. Science excludes things like divinity and "supernatural influences " (here defined quite rigidly as those falling outside of the "natural realm") because by its very nature, those types of things CANNOT be studied scientifically. It is not elitism or snobbery or disdain or that people who hold religious views are stupid. "God" does not enter into it because "God" and such concepts cannot be studied scientifically. That is it, no nefarious plots, no secularized concerted efforts to brainwash the masses,

There are plenty of things that fall outside of the scientific realm. Science does not invalidate ethics, morality, art, literature, music, philosophy, emotion, or many other things. Nobody tries to deny the power of many of these things by saying because science does not include them, they are therefore null and void. But at the same time, far too many people state that science somehow must make room for the divine. Why?

As has been stated NUMEROUS times by so many people whose views range all over the spectrum when it comes to scientific theories, when those theories can be refuted and disproved, science is usually the first to be accepting of it, it is the nature of the study itself. Right now, like it or not, when we examine life and its origins, we keep coming back to evolution as the unifying factor. There ARE no competing scientific theories, because none of these theories have withstood the scrutiny and held up.

And not that I have seen it flung about here, but what really irks me is when those who refuse to even try to understand what evolutionary theory is about and why it does tie everything together, resort to calling those who do subscribe to it as "Darwinists." Do we go about calling those who support the theory of gravity as "Newtonians?" If you believe that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa, are you a "Copernican?" Science, in other words, is not some sort of cult. Science is nothing to be feared and frowned upon. It most CERTAINLY is one of the most important foundations that we should pass on to our children. Shaking your fists at it does not make it go away, it only makes it more solid and firm by those who seek scientific truth to keep looking and testing and searching. It most certainly is not stripping something down to its barest most basic parts and saying, "well, this is why it works." Science is not a box of tinker toys.

On the other hand, my major gripe with far too many of "organized religions" is that by many of their stances, they are arbitrarily and mutually exclusive. Many times they are also dogmatically bound and unable to grow in any meaningful constructive way. They force their adherents to basically say "My way of faith and belief is the true and correct one so therefore if you do not believe as I do, your reasoning is flawed, your faith or religion cannot be the one true one." That is for the realms of philosophy and theology and certainly these merit much study and "truth seeking" of their own. But, really, would some supernatural divine presence able to cook up the universe be as petty and self-serving as what we have attributed to "him" and convinced ourselves of? IMO only, far too much of religion is so overwhelmingly humancentric as to be blind to much everything else. Until we can step back from that narcissistic position, we are closing ourselves into a box of our own making.

halplm wrote:

vison wrote:

First, people invented god. Why? Because they didn't have telescopes or microscopes, so they had to find some other way of explaining things. It was a pretty good system, at the time. Oh, and they didn't have paper or writing and stuff.

Then, when they got telescopes and microscopes, they learned a lotta stuff and by then they had paper and could write and, like, they could write it down and we can read it.

There you are. Now you know.

So people only believe in God because they are too stupid to realize that we invented him in the first place out of our own ignorance.

That's a lot of stupid people.

It must feel good to feel superior to so many people...

Of course it does!!! It's a delightful sensation. I just spent an hour gazing at my magnificence in the mirror and I just feel real good about that.


How do you think people got a god?

Unless, of course, you do believe in Adam and Eve and all that. In which case, that explains it.

But I, obviously, don't. I think it was a brilliant construct, when it was, um, like, constructed. Our remote ancestors were as smart as we are, and they seemed to be very observant and clever. I think, given the circumstances, that inventing a god or gods was wonderful. And I am not being in the least bit sarcastic. I am in awe of our human ancestors and what they accomplished, while still leading hard, short lives, at the mercy of the universe they worshipped and feared. That they were able to create not only the god of creation, but the god who laid down the rules for how to live together in peace, and for a good/moral life: that is incredible.

Another good post, The Watcher. But you've heard of those biblical pearls, I suppose?

LOL, yes, humanity is the greatest thing there is. No problems with humanity at all... we're the best.

Wow... there is no better debating tool than sarcastic cynicism... it's so effective AND what we really need is more negativity in our lives.

(the above being just sarcastic)

yes sarcasm is great. I particularly like it when it's aimed at people who are actually capable of believing in things greater than themselves.

halplm wrote:

yes sarcasm is great. I particularly like it when it's aimed at people who are actually capable of believing in things greater than themselves.

Wow. I gotta see -- am I bleeding?

Nope. I'm not.

Look, halplm. You believe that by believing in a god you are "believing in things greater than" yourself. That's fine for you.

It isn't fine for a lot of people.

As far as I know, and certainly as far as anyone can "prove", there is no other kind of being in the universe that can have the sort of discussion going on here. None. Nowhere, not one.

There is nothing "greater" than what we have and what we are. We are what there is.

hal, I appreciated your post and your honesty in expressing your thoughts and views.

Jewelsong, did I already tell you how much I appreciated your post? If not, I did. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I'll try to explain a bit more later what I meant about information theory stuff, but I am totally fried right now.


Lali

vison wrote:

halplm wrote:

yes sarcasm is great. I particularly like it when it's aimed at people who are actually capable of believing in things greater than themselves.

Wow. I gotta see -- am I bleeding?

Nope. I'm not.

Look, halplm. You believe that by believing in a god you are "believing in things greater than" yourself. That's fine for you.

It isn't fine for a lot of people.

As far as I know, and certainly as far as anyone can "prove", there is no other kind of being in the universe that can have the sort of discussion going on here. None. Nowhere, not one.

There is nothing "greater" than what we have and what we are. We are what there is.

That is your limited and condescending point of view. If you could expand your mind to incorporate things that you don't fully understand, you might be able to understand that other people don't see it that way.

I'm fine with you believing as you do, but I'm not fne with you calling me or anyone else that believes in God stupid... that's just cynicaly an predjudiced.

But I've yet to see you open your mind to anyoen else's point of view, so maybe nothing I say matters...

When did Vison call you or anybody else stupid?

halplm wrote:

yes sarcasm is great. I particularly like it when it's aimed at people who are actually capable of believing in things greater than themselves.

People can believe in science AND still have room within themselves to look for more esoteric "truths." The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and never have been. Fear is what I see raising its ugly head here, nothing else.

Put it this way, if there is indeed a divine presence out there, why would he/she/it want to deny the search for knowledge and "truth" as we humans can define it? There is no reason that I can come up with. Why would the divine give us curiosity and free will and then seek to restrict it? I challenge someone to answer THOSE questions, instead of debating why we should revert to the Dark Age mentality of what we teach in our public school classrooms.